date:20130923

Blaze, that kind of thing was one of the things I was alluding to.
The stuff that is now openly admitted to as 'Old News' is horrific.

But at the time it would have been considered an unreasonable conspiracy
theory.

And today similar things do happen, but they are dismissed as conspiracy
theories.
Later they will be old news.




On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 4:31 PM, Blaze Spinnaker
wrote:

> oh yeah, for truly depressing caution & cynicism, read this:
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentation_in_the_United_States
>
> Sure as hell hope we don't do that sort of thing anymore
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Blaze Spinnaker  > wrote:
>
>> reasonable amount of caution:  the nsa has recruited double agents at
>> american companies to insert back doors into internet tech so they can spy
>> on both americans and those abroad.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 9:00 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 8:24 PM, John Berry wrote:
>>>
>>> The most interesting and somewhat topic relevant portion of this
 discussion is that of why belief systems that support trust in leadership,
 authority and beliefs that support general social cohesion are likely to be
 strongly selected in evolutionary terms.

>>>
>>> I'm not against the topic.  I was being a little flippant -- my
>>> apologies.  I do not mean to be disrespectful.  I guess I feel that there's
>>> healthy skepticism, and then there's stuff that goes beyond healthy
>>> skepticism.  It is healthy to be skeptical of mainstream science when it
>>> comes to something like LENR.  It is healthy to be skeptical of the
>>> government when they say that they're not reading your email right now.
>>>
>>> Then there's stuff that goes beyond healthy skepticism.  It's almost
>>> like an autoimmune disorder, where the immune system goes overboard and
>>> attacks the body or the nervous system.  This seems to be the case when
>>> people throw out all science, instead of just the more egregious stuff
>>> discounting LENR.  Or when we imagine a cabal that is intentionally playing
>>> around with the Fed rate in order to maintain control of Washington.
>>>
>>> I guess it's a matter of degree more than anything else.
>>>
>>> Right amount of caution and cynicism: The US government help to
>>> overthrow an elected government in Iran and support the coup-d'etat that
>>> put in place the Shah.
>>> Right amount of caution and cynicism: The CIA tried to organize an
>>> invasion of Cuba when Castro took over.
>>> Right amount of caution and cynicism: The US government gave its support
>>> to brutal dictators in South America for many years.
>>> Right amount of caution and cynicism: The US government gave coordinates
>>> of Iranian military forces to the Iraqi government so that chemical weapons
>>> could be more accurately deployed against them.
>>> Going overboard:  The US government, or some part of it, undertook a
>>> false flag operation and destroyed the World Trade Center buildings with
>>> planes in order to advance its strategic objectives.
>>> Going overboard:  The US government, or some part of it, thought it
>>> would make sense to deploy a hydrogen bomb against a US city or town for
>>> the sake of its strategic objectives. (I suppose this would potentially
>>> occur to a few extremists in government, but luckily more rational people
>>> would no doubt prevail.)
>>>
>>> I don't think it is submitting to the aura of authority of the US
>>> government and yielding up critical analysis and imbibing its account of
>>> things to take these positions.  It's asking what makes sense and what is
>>> feasible, and trying to sort out the truth of the matter.  This is
>>> something that is hard to do when one's trust of anything and everything
>>> related to the government has been undermined.
>>>
>>> Eric
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

RE: [Vo]:New LENR patent application from STMicroelectronics

DJ Cravens,

Here is another variable mass theory for LENR -

"Theories of variable mass particles and low energy nuclear phenomena"
http://www.scribd.com/doc/139182265/Theories-of-variable-mass-particles-and-low-energy-nuclear-phenomena

I am not sure if it is related to Williams' approach.

-- Lou Pagnucco

DJ Cravens wrote:
> You might notice that Pharis' theory that the patent was based on uses the
> neo-coulombic potential.   Some observant person might notice that the
> name of my booth at NI Week was Neo- Coulombic- named after that
> potential.  The same person might notice that I wrote the preface for
> Pharis' book ( The Dynamic Theory - A New View of Space-Time-Matter: The
> thermodynamic foundations of a five dimensional universe )
>
> I normally shy away from theory in public and stick to experiments .  But
> this theory and Letts' empirical fitted values have helped guide my
> experiments.  No, they are not perfect but even the light from a small
> candle is good in total darkness.
>
> It is an obscure theory- to say the least.   It is based on a 5 dim
> relativistic theory developed from thermodynamics using mass density as a
> physically real dimension. (avoids the cylindrical restrictions of KK
> theories) It predicts a "softer nuclear potential" (and non singular).
> It also gives a max mass to energy conversion rate (like 4D did for a
> physical speed).  It predicts the nuclear binding energy closer than the
> standard models and reaction speeds within nuclear explosives.
>
> I like the theory since it derives EM and relativity starting from thermo
> instead of trying the other way around.  I don't agree with all the theory
> states but it is an interesting and unique approach to GR and QM. I will
> warn others that the theory does things like allow for variations in G and
> h similar to Dirac's large number hypothesis and it seems to exclude
> neutrinos with mass.
>
> D2
>
>
>> Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 13:26:25 -0400
>> Subject: RE: [Vo]:New LENR patent application from STMicroelectronics
>> From: pagnu...@htdconnect.com
>> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>>
>> *** Resend of last partial email ***
>> Jones,
>>
>> By a nonsingular potential, he means that the 1/r term must be incorrect
>> as r --> 0.  I have not read his theory so I have no opinion.
>>
>> The "De Haas-van Alphen effect" is a new one for me.
>> Interesting.  I need to research it.
>> Whether it relates to Williams' theory may be a question you can ask
>> him.
>> His website -
>> 'www.nmt.edu/~pharis/' lists his email address 'pha...@emrtc.nmt.edu'
>>
>> Another one of his interviews is at 'The Space Show' website -
>> http://thespaceshow.wordpress.com/2011/06/10/pharis-williams-friday-6-10-11/
>>
>> I do not know whether his theories have been put through rigorous
>> experimental tests.
>>
>> -- Lou Pagnucco
>>
>> Jones Beene wrote:
>> >>
>> >> -Original Message-
>> >> From: pagnu...@htdconnect.com
>> >>
>> >> BTW, a recently published cold D+D fusion patent application is -
>> >> Deuterium Reactor  -- US 20130235963 A1
>> >>
>> >> ABSTRACT
>> >> The Deuterium Reactor is a fusion reactor whose design is based upon
>> a
>> >> non-singular electrostatic required by the quantization of electric
>> >> charge. This potential allows for a significant reduction in the
>> fusion
>> >> barrier of deuterium nuclei when these nuclei are held in close
>> >> proximity,
>> >> as within a crystal, and preconditioned using a magnetic field.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Lou, interesting find, in a way.
>> >>
>> >>  At first this application seemed nutty, but the inventor was funded
>> by
>> >> a
>> >> small grant from:
>> >>
>> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Head_Naval_Surface_Warfare_Center
>> >>
>> >> Whether that adds any credibility to the application is debatable.
>> >>
>> >> One might reasonably ask: what is "a non-singular electrostatic
>> required
>> >> by
>> >> the quantization of electric charge." Sounds cranky. Given the
>> Quantum
>> >> Hall
>> >> Effect, it is hard to imagine what the inventor is talking about -
>> >> unless
>> >> he
>> >> is invoking Mills' f/H or redundant ground states - from another
>> >> perspective, or else Landau quantization.
>> >>
>> >> In regard to the later, the De Haas-van Alphen effect may indeed have
>> a
>> >> place in a hypothesis for "nanomagnetism" in LENR ... in the way that
>> >> Ahern
>> >> and others are suggesting, yet I do not remember seeing this effect
>> >> mentioned before now.
>> >>
>> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Haas%E2%80%93van_Alphen_effect
>> >>
>> >> Jones
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Was the Navy shooting far more significant than it seems?

2013-09-23 Thread Blaze Spinnaker

oh yeah, for truly depressing caution & cynicism, read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentation_in_the_United_States

Sure as hell hope we don't do that sort of thing anymore


On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Blaze Spinnaker
wrote:

> reasonable amount of caution:  the nsa has recruited double agents at
> american companies to insert back doors into internet tech so they can spy
> on both americans and those abroad.
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 9:00 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 8:24 PM, John Berry wrote:
>>
>> The most interesting and somewhat topic relevant portion of this
>>> discussion is that of why belief systems that support trust in leadership,
>>> authority and beliefs that support general social cohesion are likely to be
>>> strongly selected in evolutionary terms.
>>>
>>
>> I'm not against the topic.  I was being a little flippant -- my
>> apologies.  I do not mean to be disrespectful.  I guess I feel that there's
>> healthy skepticism, and then there's stuff that goes beyond healthy
>> skepticism.  It is healthy to be skeptical of mainstream science when it
>> comes to something like LENR.  It is healthy to be skeptical of the
>> government when they say that they're not reading your email right now.
>>
>> Then there's stuff that goes beyond healthy skepticism.  It's almost like
>> an autoimmune disorder, where the immune system goes overboard and attacks
>> the body or the nervous system.  This seems to be the case when people
>> throw out all science, instead of just the more egregious stuff discounting
>> LENR.  Or when we imagine a cabal that is intentionally playing around with
>> the Fed rate in order to maintain control of Washington.
>>
>> I guess it's a matter of degree more than anything else.
>>
>> Right amount of caution and cynicism: The US government help to overthrow
>> an elected government in Iran and support the coup-d'etat that put in place
>> the Shah.
>> Right amount of caution and cynicism: The CIA tried to organize an
>> invasion of Cuba when Castro took over.
>> Right amount of caution and cynicism: The US government gave its support
>> to brutal dictators in South America for many years.
>> Right amount of caution and cynicism: The US government gave coordinates
>> of Iranian military forces to the Iraqi government so that chemical weapons
>> could be more accurately deployed against them.
>> Going overboard:  The US government, or some part of it, undertook a
>> false flag operation and destroyed the World Trade Center buildings with
>> planes in order to advance its strategic objectives.
>> Going overboard:  The US government, or some part of it, thought it would
>> make sense to deploy a hydrogen bomb against a US city or town for the sake
>> of its strategic objectives. (I suppose this would potentially occur to a
>> few extremists in government, but luckily more rational people would no
>> doubt prevail.)
>>
>> I don't think it is submitting to the aura of authority of the US
>> government and yielding up critical analysis and imbibing its account of
>> things to take these positions.  It's asking what makes sense and what is
>> feasible, and trying to sort out the truth of the matter.  This is
>> something that is hard to do when one's trust of anything and everything
>> related to the government has been undermined.
>>
>> Eric
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Was the Navy shooting far more significant than it seems?

2013-09-23 Thread Blaze Spinnaker

reasonable amount of caution:  the nsa has recruited double agents at
american companies to insert back doors into internet tech so they can spy
on both americans and those abroad.




On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 9:00 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 8:24 PM, John Berry wrote:
>
> The most interesting and somewhat topic relevant portion of this
>> discussion is that of why belief systems that support trust in leadership,
>> authority and beliefs that support general social cohesion are likely to be
>> strongly selected in evolutionary terms.
>>
>
> I'm not against the topic.  I was being a little flippant -- my apologies.
>  I do not mean to be disrespectful.  I guess I feel that there's healthy
> skepticism, and then there's stuff that goes beyond healthy skepticism.  It
> is healthy to be skeptical of mainstream science when it comes to something
> like LENR.  It is healthy to be skeptical of the government when they say
> that they're not reading your email right now.
>
> Then there's stuff that goes beyond healthy skepticism.  It's almost like
> an autoimmune disorder, where the immune system goes overboard and attacks
> the body or the nervous system.  This seems to be the case when people
> throw out all science, instead of just the more egregious stuff discounting
> LENR.  Or when we imagine a cabal that is intentionally playing around with
> the Fed rate in order to maintain control of Washington.
>
> I guess it's a matter of degree more than anything else.
>
> Right amount of caution and cynicism: The US government help to overthrow
> an elected government in Iran and support the coup-d'etat that put in place
> the Shah.
> Right amount of caution and cynicism: The CIA tried to organize an
> invasion of Cuba when Castro took over.
> Right amount of caution and cynicism: The US government gave its support
> to brutal dictators in South America for many years.
> Right amount of caution and cynicism: The US government gave coordinates
> of Iranian military forces to the Iraqi government so that chemical weapons
> could be more accurately deployed against them.
> Going overboard:  The US government, or some part of it, undertook a false
> flag operation and destroyed the World Trade Center buildings with planes
> in order to advance its strategic objectives.
> Going overboard:  The US government, or some part of it, thought it would
> make sense to deploy a hydrogen bomb against a US city or town for the sake
> of its strategic objectives. (I suppose this would potentially occur to a
> few extremists in government, but luckily more rational people would no
> doubt prevail.)
>
> I don't think it is submitting to the aura of authority of the US
> government and yielding up critical analysis and imbibing its account of
> things to take these positions.  It's asking what makes sense and what is
> feasible, and trying to sort out the truth of the matter.  This is
> something that is hard to do when one's trust of anything and everything
> related to the government has been undermined.
>
> Eric
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Was the Navy shooting far more significant than it seems?

2013-09-23 Thread Eric Walker

On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 8:24 PM, John Berry  wrote:

The most interesting and somewhat topic relevant portion of this discussion
> is that of why belief systems that support trust in leadership, authority
> and beliefs that support general social cohesion are likely to be strongly
> selected in evolutionary terms.
>

I'm not against the topic.  I was being a little flippant -- my apologies.
 I do not mean to be disrespectful.  I guess I feel that there's healthy
skepticism, and then there's stuff that goes beyond healthy skepticism.  It
is healthy to be skeptical of mainstream science when it comes to something
like LENR.  It is healthy to be skeptical of the government when they say
that they're not reading your email right now.

Then there's stuff that goes beyond healthy skepticism.  It's almost like
an autoimmune disorder, where the immune system goes overboard and attacks
the body or the nervous system.  This seems to be the case when people
throw out all science, instead of just the more egregious stuff discounting
LENR.  Or when we imagine a cabal that is intentionally playing around with
the Fed rate in order to maintain control of Washington.

I guess it's a matter of degree more than anything else.

Right amount of caution and cynicism: The US government help to overthrow
an elected government in Iran and support the coup-d'etat that put in place
the Shah.
Right amount of caution and cynicism: The CIA tried to organize an invasion
of Cuba when Castro took over.
Right amount of caution and cynicism: The US government gave its support to
brutal dictators in South America for many years.
Right amount of caution and cynicism: The US government gave coordinates of
Iranian military forces to the Iraqi government so that chemical weapons
could be more accurately deployed against them.
Going overboard:  The US government, or some part of it, undertook a false
flag operation and destroyed the World Trade Center buildings with planes
in order to advance its strategic objectives.
Going overboard:  The US government, or some part of it, thought it would
make sense to deploy a hydrogen bomb against a US city or town for the sake
of its strategic objectives. (I suppose this would potentially occur to a
few extremists in government, but luckily more rational people would no
doubt prevail.)

I don't think it is submitting to the aura of authority of the US
government and yielding up critical analysis and imbibing its account of
things to take these positions.  It's asking what makes sense and what is
feasible, and trying to sort out the truth of the matter.  This is
something that is hard to do when one's trust of anything and everything
related to the government has been undermined.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Was the Navy shooting far more significant than it seems?

The most interesting and somewhat topic relevant portion of this discussion
is that of why belief systems that support trust in leadership, authority
and beliefs that support general social cohesion are likely to be strongly
selected in evolutionary terms.

If you are likely to go against the leader and the rest of the group,
tribe, society even if you are right, you are less likely to survive.

So it is probably very strongly selected not to oppose either the group or
the leader of the group unless you want to end up dead, or at least without
support from the group.

This is the same issue that LENR and other fringe topics are faced with.

John

On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 3:08 PM, David Roberson wrote:
>
>  Perhaps someone might want to offer a location to which this topic could
>> be pursued.
>>
>
> Vortex-B?  Southern Poverty Law Center?  ;)
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Was the Navy shooting far more significant than it seems?

2013-09-23 Thread Eric Walker

On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 3:08 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

 Perhaps someone might want to offer a location to which this topic could
> be pursued.
>

Vortex-B?  Southern Poverty Law Center?  ;)

Eric

RE: [Vo]:New LENR patent application from STMicroelectronics

2013-09-23 Thread DJ Cravens

You might notice that Pharis' theory that the patent was based on uses the 
neo-coulombic potential.   Some observant person might notice that the name of 
my booth at NI Week was Neo- Coulombic- named after that potential.  The same 
person might notice that I wrote the preface for Pharis' book ( The Dynamic 
Theory - A New View of Space-Time-Matter: The thermodynamic foundations of a 
five dimensional universe )

I normally shy away from theory in public and stick to experiments .  But this 
theory and Letts' empirical fitted values have helped guide my experiments.  
No, they are not perfect but even the light from a small candle is good in 
total darkness. 

It is an obscure theory- to say the least.   It is based on a 5 dim 
relativistic theory developed from thermodynamics using mass density as a 
physically real dimension. (avoids the cylindrical restrictions of KK theories) 
It predicts a "softer nuclear potential" (and non singular).   It also gives a 
max mass to energy conversion rate (like 4D did for a physical speed).  It 
predicts the nuclear binding energy closer than the standard models and 
reaction speeds within nuclear explosives.  

I like the theory since it derives EM and relativity starting from thermo 
instead of trying the other way around.  I don't agree with all the theory 
states but it is an interesting and unique approach to GR and QM. I will warn 
others that the theory does things like allow for variations in G and h similar 
to Dirac's large number hypothesis and it seems to exclude neutrinos with mass. 

D2

> Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 13:26:25 -0400
> Subject: RE: [Vo]:New LENR patent application from STMicroelectronics
> From: pagnu...@htdconnect.com
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> 
> *** Resend of last partial email ***
> Jones,
> 
> By a nonsingular potential, he means that the 1/r term must be incorrect
> as r --> 0.  I have not read his theory so I have no opinion.
> 
> The "De Haas-van Alphen effect" is a new one for me.
> Interesting.  I need to research it.
> Whether it relates to Williams' theory may be a question you can ask him.
> His website -
> 'www.nmt.edu/~pharis/' lists his email address 'pha...@emrtc.nmt.edu'
> 
> Another one of his interviews is at 'The Space Show' website -
> http://thespaceshow.wordpress.com/2011/06/10/pharis-williams-friday-6-10-11/
> 
> I do not know whether his theories have been put through rigorous
> experimental tests.
> 
> -- Lou Pagnucco
> 
> Jones Beene wrote:
> >>
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: pagnu...@htdconnect.com
> >>
> >> BTW, a recently published cold D+D fusion patent application is -
> >> Deuterium Reactor  -- US 20130235963 A1
> >>
> >> ABSTRACT
> >> The Deuterium Reactor is a fusion reactor whose design is based upon a
> >> non-singular electrostatic required by the quantization of electric
> >> charge. This potential allows for a significant reduction in the fusion
> >> barrier of deuterium nuclei when these nuclei are held in close
> >> proximity,
> >> as within a crystal, and preconditioned using a magnetic field.
> >>
> >>
> >> Lou, interesting find, in a way.
> >>
> >>  At first this application seemed nutty, but the inventor was funded by
> >> a
> >> small grant from:
> >>
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Head_Naval_Surface_Warfare_Center
> >>
> >> Whether that adds any credibility to the application is debatable.
> >>
> >> One might reasonably ask: what is "a non-singular electrostatic required
> >> by
> >> the quantization of electric charge." Sounds cranky. Given the Quantum
> >> Hall
> >> Effect, it is hard to imagine what the inventor is talking about -
> >> unless
> >> he
> >> is invoking Mills' f/H or redundant ground states - from another
> >> perspective, or else Landau quantization.
> >>
> >> In regard to the later, the De Haas-van Alphen effect may indeed have a
> >> place in a hypothesis for "nanomagnetism" in LENR ... in the way that
> >> Ahern
> >> and others are suggesting, yet I do not remember seeing this effect
> >> mentioned before now.
> >>
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Haas%E2%80%93van_Alphen_effect
> >>
> >> Jones
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
>

Re: [Vo]:Was the Navy shooting far more significant than it seems?

On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 9:44 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> John Berry  wrote:
>
> Jed, do you believe that if you were in countries that had insane
>> governments, and you were raised in that culture and had a normal degree of
>> faith in that government. Would you have seen them as insane?
>>
>
> I might. Many Japanese people did think their government was crazy in
> Japan in 1941, and many people in Georgia thought the Confederates were
> crazy.
>

Yes, and the same thing can be said if historians look back on the current
period, many today do consider the US government to be insane.

But if we assume that you are somewhat conservative in your views (not in
the political sense) then as you are now, then more likely you wouldn't.

> People in general tend to be sane, just as they tend to be healthy.
>

Trusting leaders is in an evolutionary sense probably a very good idea if
they are right or wrong.
Fitting into society and not opposing the top dog seems to be safe compared
to opposing, doesn't it?

It is very very unattractive to consider that your government may be so
corrupt as to be dangerous to it's people.
So it is very sane to avoid recognition that your own government can't be
trusted, is corrupt and basically insane.

But just because living in denial might be more comfortable, and even on an
individual level safer, that does not mean it is true.

If that were not so, our species would have gone extinct long ago.
>

If people did follow a leader and trust them beyond reason, we would not
have gained the organizational advantages that having leaders gives.

> Insane governments are rare.
>

While I may disagree with you there and repeat the factoid I have heard,
that more people have been killed by their own government than by all wars,
and most wars are pretty insane anyway.

, and they usually come to their senses after a while. They seldom go to
> the extreme degree they threaten.
>

Plenty have.

But what is your point, we should ignore governmental insanity (or what
looks like insanity to us, to them it might be a grand chess match and we
are looking at a pawn) because it doesn't always happen?

> Many Japanese people assumed their government and their Emperor really
> would have the nation fight to the last man, woman and child. That is what
> they said they would do. But they surrendered instead, much to the surprise
> of many people. Most wars stop long before the population is decimated
> (one-tenth killed). (Except in wars of extermination, where it the policy
> of the winner to kill or drive off the entire enemy nation.)
>
>
>
>> Hindsight is 20/20, you would not fall for that would you?
>>
>
> Many people did not fall for government lies in 20th century Japan,
> Germany, Russia
>

Yes some people, and yet many did.
A large percentage of the population did not fall for 9/11, at least not
for too long, it took me a few years, initially I would not consider it and
I thought that people who considered it were horrible for thinking such a
thing.

. . . and in other places where the government had far more power to
> enforce its ideas than the U.S. government does.
>

I think you overlook the effect of the media (who is happy to look mostly
critical, but will ignore anything significant like 9/11 being a false
flag) and hand on your heart patriotism pledges in US schools.

John

Re: [Vo]:Was the Navy shooting far more significant than it seems?

I agree with David Robinson that we should drop this discussion, but I
would like to make a few more comments, and then I shall stop.

Edmund Storms  wrote:

> The claim that the government was behind 9/11 is another example of how
> willing people are to believe insane explanations of events. They are so
> willing to distrust the government that they will believe something that
> has no evidence or rational  reasons.
>

This is partly caused by some political extremists who have deliberately
sew distrust of the government. There were some in the left wing in the
1960s, but after the 1990s there were mainly in the right wing. It is a way
gaining political power and votes. I think it is destructive and
unpatriotic.

This gives rise to another set of problems, on topic. These people are
crying wolf. When the government actually does bad things, people dismiss
it as business as usual. In the case of cold fusion, the DoE has been
irresponsible. This should have more impact than it has, because the DoE
and other agencies are not often this irresponsible. Everyone thinks they
are!

Mistakes and misjudgments are too often treated as crimes, or exaggerated.
The Solyndra investment, for example, wasn't all that bad. It wasn't
unprecedented. We should not close down the DoE because of it. Government
and industry have often made bad investments in energy, agriculture,
aviation, weapons and so on. If the government were to fund cold fusion,
you know there would be an outcry because the standards are unreasonably
high. Mistakes are not allowed.

> If the government does something insane, it will be done in full view,
> such as attacking Iraq.
>

Exactly right!

Or allowing Medicare fraud. Or not catching Bernie Madoff.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Was the Navy shooting far more significant than it seems?



On Sep 23, 2013, at 3:43 PM, John Berry wrote:

On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 9:22 AM, Jed Rothwell  
 wrote:

John Berry  wrote:


That is a good point, but the some of the same could have been  
argued about the disruption of taking the WTC down and flying  
something into the Pentagon.
Yet I and based on surveys possibly a majority of people are certain  
this did happen.


The claim that the government was behind 9/11 is another example of  
how willing people are to believe insane explanations of events. They  
are so willing to distrust the government that they will believe  
something that has no evidence or rational  reasons. Yes, 9/11  
happened. Yes, the US government was incompetent in preventing the  
act. However, no evidence exists, except is some irrational minds,  
that the towers came down because of planted explosives or because the  
US government arranged for the flights to be hijacked.  The US  
government is not clever enough to pull off such a stunt without all  
the details eventually being leaked.  If the government does something  
insane, it will be done in full view, such as attacking Iraq.


I guess it depends on how much you want to reshape things, it  
doesn't make sense to me.
Also what if the nuke's yield was reduced to appear more like  
whatever North Korea managed to detonate underground a few years ago?


Also I do not know much about the size of Washington DC, but if it  
was detonated in a remote area?  Possibly to be argued that it was  
detonated early because the good guys were on to them...


I know I can't make sense of a lot that governments do.

If you were to set off a bomb in a small city in North Carolina or  
the Midwest, the economy would survive. It is cruel to say this, but  
that would kill far fewer people, and most of the victims would have  
smaller life insurance policies.


So maybe the insurance money is part of the reason?
I know that things that seem inconceivable to me look like good  
ideas to the wrong kind of psychopath.




They may be ignorant, stupid, or self-centered, but they are not  
insane. Bush was the closest person that fit this category, but he  
is gone along with the rest of his group.


I am afraid that I am unable to understand the sense in a great many  
things that are done.


There are degrees of senselessness. There are mistakes, big  
mistakes, horrendous mistakes, and then there are things like the  
Battle of the Somme or the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.  
Governments seldom make mistakes on the latter scale.


Yesterday I watched an episode of QI, it is reasonably amusing,  
funny and informative.
 One bit of info was a steam submarine, it had funnels to let the  
steam out.
Well it worked the way you would imagine a submarine with hole in it  
would work.


More people have been killed by their own government than in all wars.

John

Re: [Vo]:Was the Navy shooting far more significant than it seems?

John Berry  wrote:

> There isn't enough money in all the insurance companies in the world to
>> cover the damages or pay off the policies. There are many wealthy people in
>> Washington, DC. The population density is high.
>>
>
> That is a good point, but the some of the same could have been argued
> about the disruption of taking the WTC down and flying something into the
> Pentagon.
>

No. I am sorry, but you fail to understand the concept of "orders of
magnitude." You need a sense of perspective. You need some grasp of large
versus small events.

This is kind like saying that having your furnace burn down your house is
"sort of the same" as the destruction of the Fukushima reactor complex.
Yes, they are both a failure of a modern energy delivery system. But one is
much, much *MUCH* bigger and more consequential than the other. Fukushima
was hundreds of millions of times more expensive than the loss of your
house would be. It led to destruction of the nuclear power industry in
Japan. 50 working nuclear reactors thrown away! That alone has got to be
worth about $800 billion in capital costs alone, never mind all the
electricity that must be generated with coal and natural gas to replace
them.

Yes, the WTC attack was disruptive, but it was nothing remotely like a
nuclear attack.

> Also what if the nuke's yield was reduced to appear more like whatever
> North Korea managed to detonate underground a few years ago?
>

There is some control over yield, but you cannot dial down a nuclear bomb
to that extent. You would just use a conventional explosive in that case.

> Also I do not know much about the size of Washington DC, but if it was
> detonated in a remote area?  Possibly to be argued that it was detonated
> early because the good guys were on to them...
>

The U.S., Russia and other countries detonated hundreds of bombs above
ground in tests in the 1950s and 60s without killing many people. I think
people would assume it was an accident.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Was the Navy shooting far more significant than it seems?

2013-09-23 Thread David Roberson


This discussion is getting a bit out of hand.  Although I find it interesting 
to monitor the complex thoughts of my fellow vorts, I suggest that we attempt 
to move on to issues that are in line with our normal conversations.  Perhaps 
someone might want to offer a location to which this topic could be pursued.

Dave


-Original Message-
From: John Berry 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, Sep 23, 2013 5:23 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Was the Navy shooting far more significant than it seems?


Jed, do you believe that if you were in countries that had insane governments, 
and you were raised in that culture and had a normal degree of faith in that 
government. Would you have seen them as insane?


Hindsight is 20/20, you would not fall for that would you?


And if it was 1962 and operation Northwoods was put into play, and you were 
appropriately patriotic for the time (on average more so than now days I would 
think) and I told you that it was a false flag operation...


Would you believe me?


Of course you don't believe it now with 9/11 despite tons of evidence.


Please consider that by being unwilling to consider such a thing, that your 
faith in the the system is precisely how false flag attacks can be considered.


After I finally accepted that 9/11 was a false flag attack, and had already 
considered Bush stole the election and had an extremely low opinion of the 
republicans...
I still was shocked to hear that they would have even dreamt up the concept of 
sexually torturing a child to coerce parent under interrogation, and making it 
legal.


I accept that my mind is not on the right wavelength to even contemplate such 
concepts.


John










On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 9:04 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

Edmund Storms  wrote:




The scary part is that intelligent people would consider this claim even 
plausible when the idea is obviously the hallucination of an insane mind. Of 
course the government lies, of course it does bad things, of course it cannot 
be trusted.




To some extent. As Ed says, you can predict with some confidence which parts 
lie, about what, for what reasons.


Many parts of the government can be trusted, especially the uncontroversial 
parts. The Agriculture Dept. will give you excellent advice on your crops. The 
Energy Information Administration (EIA) has good statistics. I know they are 
good because:


* They fit in well with other sources.



* If the EIA misrepresented or misplaced the data, industry would raise a big 
stink.



* Most of them come from industry. Say what you like about American industry, 
it usually provides good technical data. You can always trust things like the 
gas mileage estimates on new cars, or the watts and lumens ratings on 
lightbulbs. Because if one manufacturer lied about these things, the others 
would call them out. (That happens from time to time.)


Some political or law enforcement agencies are corrupt or unreliable. The DoE 
is biased against cold fusion.






 But the government does operate in predictable ways.




Exactly.



 

Gaining any benefit from setting off a nuclear weapon anywhere in the US gives 
no benefit whatsoever.




Exactly. They are not crazy. There are a few crazy individuals, no doubt, but 
overall people in the U.S. government today are sane.


There are historical examples of mass insanity in governments. I would say the 
Japanese government in 1941 was crazy to attack the U.S. The Confederacy was a 
bit crazy to fight on after Atlanta fell in 1864. They should have negotiated a 
surrender.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Was the Navy shooting far more significant than it seems?

John Berry  wrote:

Jed, do you believe that if you were in countries that had insane
> governments, and you were raised in that culture and had a normal degree of
> faith in that government. Would you have seen them as insane?
>

I might. Many Japanese people did think their government was crazy in Japan
in 1941, and many people in Georgia thought the Confederates were crazy.
Just because the government is crazy, that does not mean that the whole
population is.

People in general tend to be sane, just as they tend to be healthy. If that
were not so, our species would have gone extinct long ago.

Insane governments are rare, and they usually come to their senses after a
while. They seldom go to the extreme degree they threaten. Many Japanese
people assumed their government and their Emperor really would have the
nation fight to the last man, woman and child. That is what they said they
would do. But they surrendered instead, much to the surprise of many
people. Most wars stop long before the population is decimated (one-tenth
killed). (Except in wars of extermination, where it the policy of the
winner to kill or drive off the entire enemy nation.)

> Hindsight is 20/20, you would not fall for that would you?
>

Many people did not fall for government lies in 20th century Japan,
Germany, Russia . . . and in other places where the government had far more
power to enforce its ideas than the U.S. government does.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Was the Navy shooting far more significant than it seems?

On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 9:22 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> John Berry  wrote:
>
>
>> I disagree, if you are twisted, and want the power of fear over people to
>> control them with more draconian measures and to start a war because you
>> want people to support for conquest, and lowering the population,
>> overthrowing governments and because it would cause huge financial gain for
>> military manufacturing.
>>
>
> You seem to have no feel for how big a thermonuclear bomb explosion is, or
> what it would do. I can imagine a small attack fitting the purposes you
> describe. Even a larger one such as the 9/11 aircraft attacks. But anything
> on the scale of single nuclear bomb in Washington DC would not cause a
> "financial gain" -- it would destroy money as we know it. There is no
> conceivable "financial gain" from the explosion of a thermonuclear bomb, in
> any city on earth. That cannot benefit anyone.
>
> The extent of the damage would be unimaginable. The smallest modern bomb
> is far larger than the Hiroshima bomb, which was a horror you cannot begin
> to conceive of. Not only the physical damage, but also damage to things
> like the stock market, the financial markets, healthcare, infrastructure or
> insurance. Those institutions would cease to exist. Every life and property
> insurance company would be instantly bankrupt. There isn't enough money in
> all the insurance companies in the world to cover the damages or pay off
> the policies. There are many wealthy people in Washington, DC. The
> population density is high.
>

That is a good point, but the some of the same could have been argued about
the disruption of taking the WTC down and flying something into the
Pentagon.
Yet I and based on surveys possibly a majority of people are certain this
did happen.

I guess it depends on how much you want to reshape things, it doesn't make
sense to me.
Also what if the nuke's yield was reduced to appear more like whatever
North Korea managed to detonate underground a few years ago?

Also I do not know much about the size of Washington DC, but if it was
detonated in a remote area?  Possibly to be argued that it was detonated
early because the good guys were on to them...

I know I can't make sense of a lot that governments do.

If you were to set off a bomb in a small city in North Carolina or the
> Midwest, the economy would survive. It is cruel to say this, but that would
> kill far fewer people, and most of the victims would have smaller life
> insurance policies.
>

So maybe the insurance money is part of the reason?
I know that things that seem inconceivable to me look like good ideas to
the wrong kind of psychopath.

>
>
>
>> They may be ignorant, stupid, or self-centered, but they are not insane.
>>> Bush was the closest person that fit this category, but he is gone along
>>> with the rest of his group.
>>>
>>
>> I am afraid that I am unable to understand the sense in a great many
>> things that are done.
>>
>
> There are degrees of senselessness. There are mistakes, big mistakes,
> horrendous mistakes, and then there are things like the Battle of the Somme
> or the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Governments seldom make mistakes on
> the latter scale.
>

Yesterday I watched an episode of QI, it is reasonably amusing, funny and
informative.
 One bit of info was a steam submarine, it had funnels to let the steam out.
Well it worked the way you would imagine a submarine with hole in it would
work.

More people have been killed by their own government than in all wars.

John

Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion on Wikipedia japanes and chinese

2013-09-23 Thread Rob Dingemans


Dear Jed,

On 23-9-2013 20:13, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Furthermore, decreasing the cost of energy is likely to improve first 
world economies sooner than it improves third world countries or 
China, since we have more high tech, we have more ways to grow the 
economy, and we import more energy per capita than they do. Lower 
energy costs would be a tremendous boon to Japan, because they are 
closing down all of the nuclear power plants.


You would be right if the focus of the ones in charge were to be on 
lowering energy cost and gaining a higher standard of living for ALL people.

However I strongly doubt if that is what their real intention is.
I tend to agree with Alain and Edmund's (probably also Peter Gluck's) 
perception of how the world is "managed".


Kind regards,

Rob

Re: [Vo]:Was the Navy shooting far more significant than it seems?

Jed, do you believe that if you were in countries that had insane
governments, and you were raised in that culture and had a normal degree of
faith in that government. Would you have seen them as insane?

Hindsight is 20/20, you would not fall for that would you?

And if it was 1962 and operation Northwoods was put into play, and you were
appropriately patriotic for the time (on average more so than now days I
would think) and I told you that it was a false flag operation...

Would you believe me?

Of course you don't believe it now with 9/11 despite tons of evidence.

Please consider that by being unwilling to consider such a thing, that your
faith in the the system is precisely how false flag attacks can be
considered.

After I finally accepted that 9/11 was a false flag attack, and had already
considered Bush stole the election and had an extremely low opinion of the
republicans...
I still was shocked to hear that they would have even dreamt up the concept
of sexually torturing a child to coerce parent under interrogation, and
making it legal.

I accept that my mind is not on the right wavelength to even contemplate
such concepts.

John

On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 9:04 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Edmund Storms  wrote:
>
> The scary part is that intelligent people would consider this claim even
>> plausible when the idea is obviously the hallucination of an insane mind.
>> Of course the government lies, of course it does bad things, of course it
>> cannot be trusted.
>>
>
> To some extent. As Ed says, you can predict with some confidence which
> parts lie, about what, for what reasons.
>
> Many parts of the government can be trusted, especially the
> uncontroversial parts. The Agriculture Dept. will give you excellent advice
> on your crops. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) has good
> statistics. I know they are good because:
>
> * They fit in well with other sources.
>
> * If the EIA misrepresented or misplaced the data, industry would raise a
> big stink.
>
> * Most of them come from industry. Say what you like about American
> industry, it usually provides good technical data. You can always trust
> things like the gas mileage estimates on new cars, or the watts and lumens
> ratings on lightbulbs. Because if one manufacturer lied about these things,
> the others would call them out. (That happens from time to time.)
>
> Some political or law enforcement agencies are corrupt or unreliable. The
> DoE is biased against cold fusion.
>
>
>  But the government does operate in predictable ways.
>>
>
> Exactly.
>
>
>
>> Gaining any benefit from setting off a nuclear weapon anywhere in the US
>> gives no benefit whatsoever.
>>
>
> Exactly. They are not crazy. There are a few crazy individuals, no doubt,
> but overall people in the U.S. government today are sane.
>
> There are historical examples of mass insanity in governments. I would say
> the Japanese government in 1941 was crazy to attack the U.S. The
> Confederacy was a bit crazy to fight on after Atlanta fell in 1864. They
> should have negotiated a surrender.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Was the Navy shooting far more significant than it seems?

John Berry  wrote:

> I disagree, if you are twisted, and want the power of fear over people to
> control them with more draconian measures and to start a war because you
> want people to support for conquest, and lowering the population,
> overthrowing governments and because it would cause huge financial gain for
> military manufacturing.
>

You seem to have no feel for how big a thermonuclear bomb explosion is, or
what it would do. I can imagine a small attack fitting the purposes you
describe. Even a larger one such as the 9/11 aircraft attacks. But anything
on the scale of single nuclear bomb in Washington DC would not cause a
"financial gain" -- it would destroy money as we know it. There is no
conceivable "financial gain" from the explosion of a thermonuclear bomb, in
any city on earth. That cannot benefit anyone.

The extent of the damage would be unimaginable. The smallest modern bomb is
far larger than the Hiroshima bomb, which was a horror you cannot begin to
conceive of. Not only the physical damage, but also damage to things like
the stock market, the financial markets, healthcare, infrastructure or
insurance. Those institutions would cease to exist. Every life and property
insurance company would be instantly bankrupt. There isn't enough money in
all the insurance companies in the world to cover the damages or pay off
the policies. There are many wealthy people in Washington, DC. The
population density is high.

If you were to set off a bomb in a small city in North Carolina or the
Midwest, the economy would survive. It is cruel to say this, but that would
kill far fewer people, and most of the victims would have smaller life
insurance policies.

> They may be ignorant, stupid, or self-centered, but they are not insane.
>> Bush was the closest person that fit this category, but he is gone along
>> with the rest of his group.
>>
>
> I am afraid that I am unable to understand the sense in a great many
> things that are done.
>

There are degrees of senselessness. There are mistakes, big mistakes,
horrendous mistakes, and then there are things like the Battle of the Somme
or the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Governments seldom make mistakes on
the latter scale.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Was the Navy shooting far more significant than it seems?

Edmund Storms  wrote:

The scary part is that intelligent people would consider this claim even
> plausible when the idea is obviously the hallucination of an insane mind.
> Of course the government lies, of course it does bad things, of course it
> cannot be trusted.
>

To some extent. As Ed says, you can predict with some confidence which
parts lie, about what, for what reasons.

Many parts of the government can be trusted, especially the uncontroversial
parts. The Agriculture Dept. will give you excellent advice on your crops.
The Energy Information Administration (EIA) has good statistics. I know
they are good because:

* They fit in well with other sources.

* If the EIA misrepresented or misplaced the data, industry would raise a
big stink.

* Most of them come from industry. Say what you like about American
industry, it usually provides good technical data. You can always trust
things like the gas mileage estimates on new cars, or the watts and lumens
ratings on lightbulbs. Because if one manufacturer lied about these things,
the others would call them out. (That happens from time to time.)

Some political or law enforcement agencies are corrupt or unreliable. The
DoE is biased against cold fusion.

But the government does operate in predictable ways.
>

Exactly.

> Gaining any benefit from setting off a nuclear weapon anywhere in the US
> gives no benefit whatsoever.
>

Exactly. They are not crazy. There are a few crazy individuals, no doubt,
but overall people in the U.S. government today are sane.

There are historical examples of mass insanity in governments. I would say
the Japanese government in 1941 was crazy to attack the U.S. The
Confederacy was a bit crazy to fight on after Atlanta fell in 1864. They
should have negotiated a surrender.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Was the Navy shooting far more significant than it seems?

On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 8:41 AM, Edmund Storms wrote:

> The scary part is that intelligent people would consider this claim even
> plausible when the idea is obviously the hallucination of an insane mind.
> Of course the government lies, of course it does bad things, of course it
> cannot be trusted. But the government does operate in predictable ways.
> Gaining any benefit from setting off a nuclear weapon anywhere in the US
> gives no benefit whatsoever.
>

I disagree, if you are twisted, and want the power of fear over people to
control them with more draconian measures and to start a war because you
want people to support for conquest, and lowering the population,
overthrowing governments and because it would cause huge financial gain for
military manufacturing.

Only an insane mind would consider such an act to have any benefit.
>

I consider that to be the case of many in politics.

>  I do not believe the US is being lead by insane people.
>

That is where you and I differ.

> They may be ignorant, stupid, or self-centered, but they are not insane.
> Bush was the closest person that fit this category, but he is gone along
> with the rest of his group.
>

I am afraid that I am unable to understand the sense in a great many things
that are done.

You have failed to consider precisely what I said in the first email, that
horrific things are planned and done by governments, including the US
govenment.

The only issue is that the only non-controversial cases are historical as
and recent example is likely to be hotly debated.

Do you need evidence that they used to be insane?

Re: [Vo]:Was the Navy shooting far more significant than it seems?

The scary part is that intelligent people would consider this claim  
even plausible when the idea is obviously the hallucination of an  
insane mind. Of course the government lies, of course it does bad  
things, of course it cannot be trusted. But the government does  
operate in predictable ways. Gaining any benefit from setting off a  
nuclear weapon anywhere in the US gives no benefit whatsoever. Only an  
insane mind would consider such an act to have any benefit.  I do not  
believe the US is being lead by insane people. They may be ignorant,  
stupid, or self-centered, but they are not insane. Bush was the  
closest person that fit this category, but he is gone along with the  
rest of his group.



On Sep 23, 2013, at 2:25 PM, John Berry wrote:

On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 2:16 AM, Jed Rothwell  
 wrote:
This doesn't just "seem kinda far out." It IS far out. Far, far out.  
Farther out than the Voyager 1 spacecraft.


Ok, but the problem here is that you have limits to what you will  
give serious consideration.


While I know you do not believe what I and many are certain has been  
proven about 9/11, even the things that are accepted and non- 
controversial that governments and other organizations have done or  
have planned to do would show you that this is not really as far out  
as Voyager 1, sadly.


And while I could mention some of these things, the problem is that  
you will always consider that it applies to either other  
governments, not the transparent US Government, and when it is the  
US Government, then surely not now.


Do you really need a list of things Governments, including the US  
government (and military) has done that makes this sadly plausible?


They have lost plausible deniability on anything at this point.

John

Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion on Wikipedia japanes and chinese

James Bowery  wrote:

> There is a similar unenlightened self-interest at work in preventing the
> proper development and deployment of LENR.  It is "intelligent" in that
> sense and it has no incentive to become "enlightened" about its
> self-interest.
>
> There are therefore two questions in modeling this "intelligence":
>
> 1) What is the actual authority structure?
> 2) What is the actual incentive structure?
>

The only people standing in the way of cold fusion today are a small number
of academic scientists, at places like MIT, the DoE, Nature magazine and
the Jasons. Unfortunately, they have a great deal of influence. They are
opposed to it on theoretical grounds, and because they can't imagine they
might be mistaken, so they are not cautious. (That thought never crosses
their minds.) Not because they are invested in oil.

There is also opposition from many ordinary people and many stupid people
at places like Wikipedia, for the reasons explained by Francis Bacon:

"The human understanding, when any preposition has been once laid down,
(either from general admission and belief, or from the pleasure it
affords,) forces every thing else to add fresh support and confirmation;
and although more cogent and abundant instances may exist to the contrary,
yet either does not observe or despises them, or gets rid of and rejects
them by some distinction, with violent and injurious prejudice, rather than
sacrifice the authority of its first conclusions."

The rest of the world has no idea that cold fusion exists. Not the
slightest idea. I have talked to enough government officials and big name
scientists to ascertain that, and so have people such as Rob Duncan.
Leaders and decision makers are not opposed to it. They do not have the
slightest inkling that it exists. Yes, thousands of people have read papers
at LENR-CANR.org, but there are billions of people on the Internet. Many of
the people who read papers keep their knowledge to themselves, because
there is widespread contempt and ridicule.

If it becomes generally known that cold fusion is real, then I am sure
there will be TREMENDOUS opposition from big oil, big coal, big wind and so
on. Unbelievable opposition. You should see how they attack one-another!
However, this opposition will avail them nothing. Nothing can stand in the
way of a Niagara Falls flow of money.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Was the Navy shooting far more significant than it seems?

On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 2:16 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> This doesn't just "seem kinda far out." It IS far out. Far, far out.
> Farther out than the Voyager 1 spacecraft.
>

Ok, but the problem here is that you have limits to what you will give
serious consideration.

While I know you do not believe what I and many are certain has been proven
about 9/11, even the things that are accepted and non-controversial that
governments and other organizations have done or have planned to do would
show you that this is not really as far out as Voyager 1, sadly.

And while I could mention some of these things, the problem is that you
will always consider that it applies to either other governments, not the
transparent US Government, and when it is the US Government, then surely
not now.

Do you really need a list of things Governments, including the US
government (and military) has done that makes this sadly plausible?

They have lost plausible deniability on anything at this point.

John

Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion on Wikipedia japanes and chinese

Rob Dingemans  wrote:

Dear Jed,
>
>
> On 23-9-2013 20:13, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
>> Furthermore, decreasing the cost of energy is likely to improve first
>> world economies sooner than it improves third world countries or China,
>> since we have more high tech, we have more ways to grow the economy, and we
>> import more energy per capita than they do. Lower energy costs would be a
>> tremendous boon to Japan, because they are closing down all of the nuclear
>> power plants.
>>
>
>

> You would be right if the focus of the ones in charge were to be on
> lowering energy cost and gaining a higher standard of living for ALL people.
> However I strongly doubt if that is what their real intention is.
>

"Intentions" play no role in economics. No one is in charge. Many people
think they are in charge, but as we saw in the 2008 economic collapse,
those people actually have no power and no control over anything. If it
becomes generally known that cold fusion is real and that it can save every
American ~$2,000 per year, no force on earth could stop the development --
or slow it down. Money has power over society than anything else. Even if
both political parties and every member of the 1% elite opposed cold fusion
there is nothing they could do to stop it from being developed. The demand
will be too strong. The profit motive too strong.

In fact, many large industries and many members of the elite will want cold
fusion, because they will make money with it. Exxon will surely go bankrupt
soon. That's $450 billion per year lost. Others will make that money
instead. It isn't going to fall down a black hole. It won't be going to
Saudi Arabia any more. People who stop buying gas will spend the money
elsewhere.

> I tend to agree with Alain and Edmund's (probably also Peter Gluck's)
> perception of how the world is "managed".
>

The world is never managed. It is chaos and happenstance. No one is in
charge, because no one can predict the future. The people who think they
are in charge, such as Alan Greenspan, usually turn out to be witless.

People did not even anticipate the rise of natural gas electric power
generation, which is rapidly overtaking coal. That is a conventional source
of energy. It is a minor, incremental change in the technology. It is
blowing the coal companies out of the water. No one cares about that except
people who own stock in coal companies, and coal miners. There are more
people building wind turbines than there are miners, so it makes little
difference to the overall economy. See:

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=7090

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion on Wikipedia japanes and chinese

2013-09-23 Thread James Bowery

Good... perhaps I can try my approach from the angle opened up by the
problem of writing off capital investments in a "debt saturated" western
economy:

The bailout of the large financial institutions was an example of the kind
of 'panic' that results when a massive write-off of capital investments
occurs.  In that instance, there was a choice as to whether to bailout the
debt-loaded population so they could service their debts, or whether to
bail out the financial institutions so they could, for example, foreclose
and evict the population from their homes and let those homes be overtaken
by squatters, weeds, mildew algae growing in their swimming pools.  The
system made a decision:  Evict the population and centralize assets in the
hands of the financial institutions.  If you recall during this period
there were serious proposals in the major financial press for the
government to mobilize the physical destruction of "excess" housing
resulting from the centralization of real wealth.

This was an "intelligent" decision from some interests' perspectives and it
was a "stupid" decision from others' perspective.   Of course, the
new-homeless didn't care whether it was intelligent or stupid --
conspiratorial or accidental -- it was just downright evil from their
perspective.

Viewing the system that made this decision as exhibiting unenlightened
self-interest, we can invoke my saying "Never attribute to sheer stupidity
that which can be explained by unenlightened self-interest."   In other
words, the system was acting "intelligently" here but only from some
perspectives.

There is a similar unenlightened self-interest at work in preventing the
proper development and deployment of LENR.  It is "intelligent" in that
sense and it has no incentive to become "enlightened" about its
self-interest.

There are therefore two questions in modeling this "intelligence":

1) What is the actual authority structure?
2) What is the actual incentive structure?

Analyze those two structures and something might be done.

On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 2:15 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:

> I agree Bob, the world is not managed in order to increase everyone's
> benefit. Jed tends to be an optimist about the future while I and
> apparently you as well are more of a realist. The world is in a mess. The
> West has created an unstable and unsustainable economic structure and many
> parts of the world are being threatened by religious insanity. Add
> something so unexpected, uncontrolled, and threatening to the production of
> oil, coal, and uranium as is LENR, we can expect the worst possible
> outcome.  For example, although  the US is self-sufficient in energy, the
> cost is controlled by the world market. If the cost goes down, the profit
> goes down and the loans supporting the infrastructure cannot be paid,
> resulting in massive default. The system is already saturated with such bad
> debt.
>
>  Meanwhile, China is limited by how fast she can build energy generators
> and by availability of water. If she can out produce us now, just think
> what she can do with unlimited energy. In the future, she will be selling
> to her own people for prices we can not afford, resulting in shortages and
> a lower standard of living in the West. I raise these issues because unless
> the West finds an intelligent way to respond to this situation, we in the
> West will be in bad shape. Unless the real threat is acknowledge, no effort
> will be made to find a solution until it is too late, as is typical of how
> the West reacts. Simply pretending all will work out is not a solution.
>
> Ed
>
> On Sep 23, 2013, at 12:52 PM, Rob Dingemans wrote:
>
>  Dear Jed,
>>
>> On 23-9-2013 20:13, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>>
>>> Furthermore, decreasing the cost of energy is likely to improve first
>>> world economies sooner than it improves third world countries or China,
>>> since we have more high tech, we have more ways to grow the economy, and we
>>> import more energy per capita than they do. Lower energy costs would be a
>>> tremendous boon to Japan, because they are closing down all of the nuclear
>>> power plants.
>>>
>>
>> You would be right if the focus of the ones in charge were to be on
>> lowering energy cost and gaining a higher standard of living for ALL people.
>> However I strongly doubt if that is what their real intention is.
>> I tend to agree with Alain and Edmund's (probably also Peter Gluck's)
>> perception of how the world is "managed".
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Rob
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion on Wikipedia japanes and chinese

I agree with your description when applied to the details, Alain.  
However, the system is influenced by certain people based on their  
self interest and wisdom, or lack thereof. We see this situation play  
out throughout histoery. Some people use their power to improve while  
others use it to destroy. The rest of us are simply bystanders and  
collateral damage. Either we do nothing and get slaughtered or we move  
out of the way. The choice is based on knowledge. For example, some  
people left Germany when Hitler came to power and others stayed and  
died in the gas chambers. Their personal choice determined their fate.  
This choice was based on what they thought Hitler would do. Everyone  
has that same choice today when they react to events. Yes, there may  
be no vision in the system itself, but personal fate still can be  
influenced by a choice based on knowledge.  If enough people make the  
proper choice, the fate of everyone can change.  Right now poor  
choices are being made by most people in the West.



On Sep 23, 2013, at 1:53 PM, Alain Sepeda wrote:


my sad vision is there is no vision...

some people think they are right, using bad heuristics.
some follow them by selfish interest to get chocolate medal or to  
earn their life

some follow just because they feel right when they follow
some get convinced because they have no culture
some shut up because they are coward, or have to protect their family
some see but nobody hear them

media feel guilty of being pretended wrong and over react to the  
opposite, to save their image

population follow the media to be cool
politician follow the population to be elected
scientists follow the money thus the politicians
politicians follow the scientists
media follos the scientists
population follow the media...

system is locked, and the dissenters are fired.
The roland Benabou Groupthink model of mutual assured delusion,  
based on the idea that if being right give you no benefit, and cause  
trouble, then you prefer to be delusioned... describe the MAD  
situation.



the best intelligence is few people aware of material science which  
simply know they have to be modest, and follow the evidence...
no strategy intelligence in the system above the one of an ant in a  
colony. no plan...
at worst vicious hate of those one feel as the evil, the foes  
accused of fighting against The True Truth... Defending the  
consensus like one defend a Mother Goddess, or simply Mum.

No conspiracy, but huge ego motivation.

all of that is tiny. From what I see , it is a tiny story. like a  
kindergarten fight.
It is a serious affair for kids anyway. they bet their soul in those  
battle... like some want to clear wikipedia, the holy territory, or  
science from pseudoscience.


with planet consequence.



2013/9/23 Edmund Storms 
I agree Bob, the world is not managed in order to increase  
everyone's benefit. Jed tends to be an optimist about the future  
while I and apparently you as well are more of a realist. The world  
is in a mess. The West has created an unstable and unsustainable  
economic structure and many parts of the world are being threatened  
by religious insanity. Add something so unexpected, uncontrolled,  
and threatening to the production of oil, coal, and uranium as is  
LENR, we can expect the worst possible outcome.  For example,  
although  the US is self-sufficient in energy, the cost is  
controlled by the world market. If the cost goes down, the profit  
goes down and the loans supporting the infrastructure cannot be  
paid, resulting in massive default. The system is already saturated  
with such bad debt.


 Meanwhile, China is limited by how fast she can build energy  
generators and by availability of water. If she can out produce us  
now, just think what she can do with unlimited energy. In the  
future, she will be selling to her own people for prices we can not  
afford, resulting in shortages and a lower standard of living in the  
West. I raise these issues because unless the West finds an  
intelligent way to respond to this situation, we in the West will be  
in bad shape. Unless the real threat is acknowledge, no effort will  
be made to find a solution until it is too late, as is typical of  
how the West reacts. Simply pretending all will work out is not a  
solution.


Ed

On Sep 23, 2013, at 12:52 PM, Rob Dingemans wrote:

Dear Jed,

On 23-9-2013 20:13, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Furthermore, decreasing the cost of energy is likely to improve  
first world economies sooner than it improves third world countries  
or China, since we have more high tech, we have more ways to grow  
the economy, and we import more energy per capita than they do.  
Lower energy costs would be a tremendous boon to Japan, because they  
are closing down all of the nuclear power plants.


You would be right if the focus of the ones in charge were to be on  
lowering energy cost and gaining a higher standard of living for ALL  
people.

However I

Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion on Wikipedia japanes and chinese

Edmund Storms wrote:

> For example, although the US is self-sufficient in energy, the cost is
> controlled by the world market.

The U.S. is not self-sufficient in energy. We consume 97 quads. We import
24 quads (mainly oil) and export 10 quads (oil and coal). See:

http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/diagram1.cfm

If the cost goes down, the profit goes down and the loans supporting the
> infrastructure cannot be paid, resulting in massive default.

That would depend on how far down the costs go, how quickly. Energy costs
have dropped throughout history. The cost of electricity in particular has
fallen in real dollars. Granted, cold fusion is likely to cause a
catastrophic drop in prices which would strand much of the industry, but
the default would not be massive. Oil, gas, coal and electric companies do
not have much debt. They are not a major part of the U.S. economy. There
would be stranded infrastructure, but it would be stranded because we don't
need it. It will not serve any purpose, and no one will miss it, any more
than we miss having the use of abandoned railroad lines.

It will take a long time to close down the electric power industry. 20 or
30 years at least, and probably longer. That is plenty of time to pay off
bonds. They will not have to buy any new equipment or generators during
that time, since the market will be contracting. They can just use up and
then throw away their old equipment. That is what U.S. railroads did from
1945 to 1965, as passenger traffic vanished. Even today, most of the
remaining rolling stock is decades old, and it is a tiny fraction of what
we had in 1945.

The global energy market is $6 trillion, but most of that money goes to the
oil producing countries, mainly in the Middle East and Russia. Their
economies will be destroyed. Not ours, and not Europe or Japan.

Look at the Fortune 500:

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2013/full_list/index.html?iid=F500_sp_full

It is true that #2, 3, 4 and 9 are in the energy business, with a total of
$992 billion, but the others are nowhere to be seen. Other companies in
other business make far more in the aggregate, and many of these companies
such as GM and Ford may benefit from cold fusion, or profit from it
directly, such as GE (assuming they make cold fusion generators). Every
dollar not earned by Exxon is likely to be spent elsewhere. Every dollar
not sent to Saudi Arabia will be spent here instead.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion on Wikipedia japanes and chinese

2013-09-23 Thread Alain Sepeda

my sad vision is there is no vision...

some people think they are right, using bad heuristics.
some follow them by selfish interest to get chocolate medal or to earn
their life
some follow just because they feel right when they follow
some get convinced because they have no culture
some shut up because they are coward, or have to protect their family
some see but nobody hear them

media feel guilty of being pretended wrong and over react to the opposite,
to save their image
population follow the media to be cool
politician follow the population to be elected
scientists follow the money thus the politicians
politicians follow the scientists
media follos the scientists
population follow the media...

system is locked, and the dissenters are fired.
The roland Benabou Groupthink model of mutual assured delusion, based on
the idea that if being right give you no benefit, and cause trouble, then
you prefer to be delusioned... describe the MAD situation.

the best intelligence is few people aware of material science which simply
know they have to be modest, and follow the evidence...
no strategy intelligence in the system above the one of an ant in a colony.
no plan...
at worst vicious hate of those one feel as the evil, the foes accused of
fighting against The True Truth... Defending the consensus like one defend
a Mother Goddess, or simply Mum.
No conspiracy, but huge ego motivation.

all of that is tiny. From what I see , it is a tiny story. like a
kindergarten fight.
It is a serious affair for kids anyway. they bet their soul in those
battle... like some want to clear wikipedia, the holy territory, or science
from pseudoscience.

with planet consequence.

2013/9/23 Edmund Storms 

> I agree Bob, the world is not managed in order to increase everyone's
> benefit. Jed tends to be an optimist about the future while I and
> apparently you as well are more of a realist. The world is in a mess. The
> West has created an unstable and unsustainable economic structure and many
> parts of the world are being threatened by religious insanity. Add
> something so unexpected, uncontrolled, and threatening to the production of
> oil, coal, and uranium as is LENR, we can expect the worst possible
> outcome.  For example, although  the US is self-sufficient in energy, the
> cost is controlled by the world market. If the cost goes down, the profit
> goes down and the loans supporting the infrastructure cannot be paid,
> resulting in massive default. The system is already saturated with such bad
> debt.
>
>  Meanwhile, China is limited by how fast she can build energy generators
> and by availability of water. If she can out produce us now, just think
> what she can do with unlimited energy. In the future, she will be selling
> to her own people for prices we can not afford, resulting in shortages and
> a lower standard of living in the West. I raise these issues because unless
> the West finds an intelligent way to respond to this situation, we in the
> West will be in bad shape. Unless the real threat is acknowledge, no effort
> will be made to find a solution until it is too late, as is typical of how
> the West reacts. Simply pretending all will work out is not a solution.
>
> Ed
>
> On Sep 23, 2013, at 12:52 PM, Rob Dingemans wrote:
>
>  Dear Jed,
>>
>> On 23-9-2013 20:13, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>>
>>> Furthermore, decreasing the cost of energy is likely to improve first
>>> world economies sooner than it improves third world countries or China,
>>> since we have more high tech, we have more ways to grow the economy, and we
>>> import more energy per capita than they do. Lower energy costs would be a
>>> tremendous boon to Japan, because they are closing down all of the nuclear
>>> power plants.
>>>
>>
>> You would be right if the focus of the ones in charge were to be on
>> lowering energy cost and gaining a higher standard of living for ALL people.
>> However I strongly doubt if that is what their real intention is.
>> I tend to agree with Alain and Edmund's (probably also Peter Gluck's)
>> perception of how the world is "managed".
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Rob
>>
>>
>

[Vo]:Quark Charge

2013-09-23 Thread Axil Axil

There are loads of theories that describe the processes that go on inside
the nucleus. In order to be taken seriously, each must be consistent with
the observed behavior of the subatomic processes that they describe as far
as the level of our understanding of those processes go.

Fro example. one of the originators of the quark theory, Murray Gell-Mann
and George Zweig, assumed that the up quark had an electric charge of 2e /
3, where e is the fundamental electronic charge, while the down quark had a
charge of –e / 3.

This fractional charge theory seems to work well enough at this juncture.

However, LENR may reveal a more fundamental theoretical approach that would
privilege a more abstract basic principle which would lead to structures
that could be physically interpretable as a force between a group of three
particles, but that originated at a deeper level of explanation.

A particularly interesting fact, which is seldom now mentioned in
textbooks, is that the original colored quark theory of M. Y. Han and
Yoichiro Nambu (HN) which followed on from the first quark theories of
Gell-Mann and Zweig proposed a different assignment of electric charges to
the quarks.5 Han and Nambu saw that exactly the same results could be
obtained using integral and zero charges and assigning an integral baryon
number to a single quark.

Up-Blue => +1
Up-Red => +1
Down-Green => -1`
Other => 0

In this representation, ‘colour’ came about because the quarks were
actually different in structure. In the Gell-Mann-Zweig version (GMZ), this
had to be added subsequently as an extra property. It is important to
realise, however, that the two models are, in fact, merely different
representations of the same physical theory, and, from the point of view of
quark phenomenology, represent exactly the same physics.


The discovery of the fractional quantum Hall effect, put into question that
fractional charge is fundamental, as a postulate of the quark theory.

Despite all this, the underlying representation based on integral charges
has seemingly dropped out of view entirely in the last thirty years. It was
never disproved, but just faded away, despite the repeated citation of the
HN paper as the origin of colour theory. If a reason needed to be given for
this, it would be that the phenomenology supports fractional charges, which
is, of course, true for both representations. It would seem that the
building of large accelerators and the opportunities they provided for
experimental investigation of models tended to concentrate effort into
providing detailed prediction and interpretation of the phenomenology and
that, if an established model was able to do this, then there was no point
in looking at alternatives which provided identical results.

So, why does it matter which theory we use if they both lead to the same
model for QED? The answer here is that some physical theories depend on
deeper and sometimes hidden symmetries which may not be obvious but have a
significant effect on the predictions that can be made. There are  areas
where the deeper symmetries might produce significantly different results
for different representations of a model which gives the same QED
phenomenology.

It is not unreasonable to suppose that the fundamentally integral nature of
charges is a strong argument in favour of unification in that the QED
phenomenology of quarks is determined by the behavior of a nonelectric
(strong) force, just as the QED phenomenology of electrons in the
fractional quantum Hall effect is seemingly determined by the nonelectric
(presumably weak) force involved in creating a pseudobosonic state. The
problem faced by having 3 separate ‘units’ of charge (e / 3, 2e / 3 and e),
with its implication that the electron, with e, may not actually be
‘elementary’, would also disappear.


The HN representation, suggested originally by one Nobel Prize winner and
indirectly supported by another, has never been disproved, and fell out of
favor more or less by accident. It would make sense to see if it can lead
to insights in other problematic areas of physics, especially as it leads
to testable predictions within the experimental capacities of both high
energy physics and LENR..


http://xxx.tau.ac.il/pdf/1308.5900.pdf

Abstract

Orthogonality between and Z boson involves the Weinberg angle and a scheme
for assignments of electric charge and weak isospin to leptons and quarks
coupling to and Z. The Han-Nambu scheme, with integer electric charges for
quarks, satisfies Z orthogonality with sin2(_W) = 0.25 in leading order.
Experimental results for photon-photon fusion into c¯c and b¯b pairs
provide further support for assigning integer electric charges to quarks.

Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion on Wikipedia japanes and chinese

I agree Bob, the world is not managed in order to increase everyone's  
benefit. Jed tends to be an optimist about the future while I and  
apparently you as well are more of a realist. The world is in a mess.  
The West has created an unstable and unsustainable economic structure  
and many parts of the world are being threatened by religious  
insanity. Add something so unexpected, uncontrolled, and threatening  
to the production of oil, coal, and uranium as is LENR, we can expect  
the worst possible outcome.  For example, although  the US is self- 
sufficient in energy, the cost is controlled by the world market. If  
the cost goes down, the profit goes down and the loans supporting the  
infrastructure cannot be paid, resulting in massive default. The  
system is already saturated with such bad debt.


 Meanwhile, China is limited by how fast she can build energy  
generators and by availability of water. If she can out produce us  
now, just think what she can do with unlimited energy. In the future,  
she will be selling to her own people for prices we can not afford,  
resulting in shortages and a lower standard of living in the West. I  
raise these issues because unless the West finds an intelligent way to  
respond to this situation, we in the West will be in bad shape. Unless  
the real threat is acknowledge, no effort will be made to find a  
solution until it is too late, as is typical of how the West reacts.  
Simply pretending all will work out is not a solution.


Ed
On Sep 23, 2013, at 12:52 PM, Rob Dingemans wrote:


Dear Jed,

On 23-9-2013 20:13, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Furthermore, decreasing the cost of energy is likely to improve  
first world economies sooner than it improves third world countries  
or China, since we have more high tech, we have more ways to grow  
the economy, and we import more energy per capita than they do.  
Lower energy costs would be a tremendous boon to Japan, because  
they are closing down all of the nuclear power plants.


You would be right if the focus of the ones in charge were to be on  
lowering energy cost and gaining a higher standard of living for ALL  
people.

However I strongly doubt if that is what their real intention is.
I tend to agree with Alain and Edmund's (probably also Peter  
Gluck's) perception of how the world is "managed".


Kind regards,

Rob

Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion on Wikipedia japanes and chinese

I wrote:

> These improvements have been drastic in some cases. LED lighting takes
> only about one-fifth of the electricity of incandescent lights.
>

Illumination is a large fraction of total energy use. See:

http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=99&t=3

QUOTE:

"How much electricity is used for lighting in the United States?

EIA estimates that in 2011, about 461 billion kilowatt-hours (kWh) of
electricity were used for lighting by the residential and commercial
sectors. This was equal to about 17% of the total electricity consumed by
both of these sectors and about 12% of total U.S. electricity consumption.

Residential lighting consumption was about 186 billion kWh or 13% of all
residential electricity consumption.

The commercial sector, which includes commercial and institutional
buildings and public street and highway lighting, consumed about 275
billion kWh for lighting or 21% of commercial sector electricity
consumption in 2011.

EIA does not have an estimate for only public street and highway lighting.
. . ."

(Note that high efficiency lighting also improved vehicle gas mileage,
since cars and trucks often drive with their lights on.)

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion on Wikipedia japanes and chinese

2013-09-23 Thread James Bowery

Sorry, Ed, I should have clarified that I wasn't referring to you as having
posited a conspiracy theory.  My abstractions may have been a bit too for
the present conversation...


On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Edmund Storms wrote:

> James, I have no idea what you mean to say here. No conspiracy is involved
> or implied. The effect of LENR on the world's economy is obvious to anyone
> who understands economics. This is reality, not some proposed crazy idea.
>
>
> On Sep 23, 2013, at 10:46 AM, James Bowery wrote:
>
> The homeostatic mechanisms of these systems embody a kind of intelligence
> that is all-too-frequently attributed to "conspiracy".  This is complicated
> by the fact that genuine conspiratorial behavior is sometimes involved.  It
> is further complicated by the vague definition of "conspiracy" as the word
> is used in rhetorical conflict.  I find it helpful to think of these
> homeostatic mechanisms as a kind of intelligence that is so alien to human
> intelligence that we have difficulty conceptualizing it.  In this respect
> it is similar to our difficulty in conceptualizing the homeostatic
> mechanisms of our own bodies that include incredibly sophisticated systems
> such as immune response.
>
> If we could somehow get a better conceptual handle on the structure of
> these mechanisms it might become practical to disrupt them so that progress
> can proceed.
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 10:38 AM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>
>> Of course LENR is denied by the West. The technology is a real and
>> profound danger to the West. It would undermine the economics of the energy
>> industries, on which the West is built, and it would give the Third world,
>> including China and India, great advantage. The people in charge in the
>> West may seem stupid in their policies, but they are fully aware of the
>> danger LENR represents. The West will be forced to accept the technology
>> eventually, but not because an intelligent approach was used to develop and
>> take advantage of the technology. No, they will have to accept the working
>> generators built in and controlled by China or some other country, such as
>> Sweden.  LENR not only has the ability to make energy cheaper but it will,
>> in the process, change the power structure of the world, just as discovery
>> of atomic weapons did. This subject may be a fun intellectual game to
>> scientists; it is a life and death issue to some industries and social
>> structures.
>>
>>
>> On Sep 23, 2013, at 3:52 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote:
>>
>> Did you notice that Cold fusion was treated much more in a balanced way
>> in Chinese and japanese .
>>
>>
>> https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%B8%B8%E6%B8%A9%E6%A0%B8%E8%9E%8D%E5%90%88
>> translated:
>>
>> http://translate.google.fr/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fja.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F%E5%B8%B8%E6%B8%A9%E6%A0%B8%E8%9E%8D%E5%90%88
>>
>>
>> http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%86%B7%E6%A0%B8%E8%81%9A%E5%8F%98
>>
>> translated:
>>
>> http://translate.google.fr/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fzh.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F%E5%86%B7%E6%A0%B8%E8%81%9A%E5%8F%98
>>
>> lenr-canr is not blacklisted, and you find reference to many positions.
>>
>> what does it inspire you?
>>
>> is LENR denial a western problem?
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion on Wikipedia japanes and chinese

Edmund Storms  wrote:

Of course LENR is denied by the West. The technology is a real and profound
> danger to the West. It would undermine the economics of the energy
> industries, on which the West is built, and it would give the Third world,
> including China and India, great advantage.
>

That is incorrect. The economics of the energy industry play only a small
role in most first world countries, such as the U.S., France or Japan. The
number of people employed in the energy business has fallen drastically in
the last several decades. The percent of the GDP devoted to energy has
fallen. GDP and productivity per joule of energy has soared, because of
improved efficiency in things like lighting, heating, power generation,
computers and automobile gas mileage. These improvements have been drastic
in some cases. LED lighting takes only about one-fifth of the electricity
of incandescent lights.

Energy plays a large role in the economics of Russia, Venezuela and Middle
Eastern oil exporting countries.

Furthermore, decreasing the cost of energy is likely to improve first world
economies sooner than it improves third world countries or China, since we
have more high tech, we have more ways to grow the economy, and we import
more energy per capita than they do. Lower energy costs would be a
tremendous boon to Japan, because they are closing down all of the nuclear
power plants.

> The people in charge in the West may seem stupid in their policies, but
> they are fully aware of the danger LENR represents.
>

I do not think so. Not the ones I have heard from. Not the ones in the
Japanese government that Mizuno and others have spoken with, or in the Navy.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion on Wikipedia japanes and chinese

James, I have no idea what you mean to say here. No conspiracy is
involved or implied. The effect of LENR on the world's economy is
obvious to anyone who understands economics. This is reality, not some
proposed crazy idea.

On Sep 23, 2013, at 10:46 AM, James Bowery wrote:

The homeostatic mechanisms of these systems embody a kind of
intelligence that is all-too-frequently attributed to "conspiracy".
This is complicated by the fact that genuine conspiratorial behavior
is sometimes involved. It is further complicated by the vague
definition of "conspiracy" as the word is used in rhetorical
conflict. I find it helpful to think of these homeostatic
mechanisms as a kind of intelligence that is so alien to human
intelligence that we have difficulty conceptualizing it. In this
respect it is similar to our difficulty in conceptualizing the
homeostatic mechanisms of our own bodies that include incredibly
sophisticated systems such as immune response.

If we could somehow get a better conceptual handle on the structure
of these mechanisms it might become practical to disrupt them so
that progress can proceed.

On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 10:38 AM, Edmund Storms
wrote:
Of course LENR is denied by the West. The technology is a real and
profound danger to the West. It would undermine the economics of the
energy industries, on which the West is built, and it would give the
Third world, including China and India, great advantage. The people
in charge in the West may seem stupid in their policies, but they
are fully aware of the danger LENR represents. The West will be
forced to accept the technology eventually, but not because an
intelligent approach was used to develop and take advantage of the
technology. No, they will have to accept the working generators
built in and controlled by China or some other country, such as
Sweden. LENR not only has the ability to make energy cheaper but it
will, in the process, change the power structure of the world, just
as discovery of atomic weapons did. This subject may be a fun
intellectual game to scientists; it is a life and death issue to
some industries and social structures.

On Sep 23, 2013, at 3:52 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote:

Did you notice that Cold fusion was treated much more in a balanced
way in Chinese and japanese .

https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%B8%B8%E6%B8%A9%E6%A0%B8%E8%9E%8D%E5%90%88
translated:
http://translate.google.fr/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fja.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F%E5%B8%B8%E6%B8%A9%E6%A0%B8%E8%9E%8D%E5%90%88

http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%86%B7%E6%A0%B8%E8%81%9A%E5%8F%98
translated:
http://translate.google.fr/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fzh.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F%E5%86%B7%E6%A0%B8%E8%81%9A%E5%8F%98

lenr-canr is not blacklisted, and you find reference to many
positions.

what does it inspire you?

is LENR denial a western problem?

RE: [Vo]:New LENR patent application from STMicroelectronics

*** Resend of last partial email ***
Jones,

By a nonsingular potential, he means that the 1/r term must be incorrect
as r --> 0.  I have not read his theory so I have no opinion.

The "De Haas-van Alphen effect" is a new one for me.
Interesting.  I need to research it.
Whether it relates to Williams' theory may be a question you can ask him.
His website -
'www.nmt.edu/~pharis/' lists his email address 'pha...@emrtc.nmt.edu'

Another one of his interviews is at 'The Space Show' website -
http://thespaceshow.wordpress.com/2011/06/10/pharis-williams-friday-6-10-11/

I do not know whether his theories have been put through rigorous
experimental tests.

-- Lou Pagnucco

Jones Beene wrote:
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: pagnu...@htdconnect.com
>>
>> BTW, a recently published cold D+D fusion patent application is -
>> Deuterium Reactor  -- US 20130235963 A1
>>
>> ABSTRACT
>> The Deuterium Reactor is a fusion reactor whose design is based upon a
>> non-singular electrostatic required by the quantization of electric
>> charge. This potential allows for a significant reduction in the fusion
>> barrier of deuterium nuclei when these nuclei are held in close
>> proximity,
>> as within a crystal, and preconditioned using a magnetic field.
>>
>>
>> Lou, interesting find, in a way.
>>
>>  At first this application seemed nutty, but the inventor was funded by
>> a
>> small grant from:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Head_Naval_Surface_Warfare_Center
>>
>> Whether that adds any credibility to the application is debatable.
>>
>> One might reasonably ask: what is "a non-singular electrostatic required
>> by
>> the quantization of electric charge." Sounds cranky. Given the Quantum
>> Hall
>> Effect, it is hard to imagine what the inventor is talking about -
>> unless
>> he
>> is invoking Mills' f/H or redundant ground states - from another
>> perspective, or else Landau quantization.
>>
>> In regard to the later, the De Haas-van Alphen effect may indeed have a
>> place in a hypothesis for "nanomagnetism" in LENR ... in the way that
>> Ahern
>> and others are suggesting, yet I do not remember seeing this effect
>> mentioned before now.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Haas%E2%80%93van_Alphen_effect
>>
>> Jones
>>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion on Wikipedia japanes and chinese

I agree, stupidly is certainly at the core of the problem. I think
the atom bomb provides a useful example of the situation. Early
during WWII, scientists understood that Germany was working on the
atom bomb and if they were successful, the power structure of the
world would change. Only a determined effort by Einstein and a few
scientists in the US were able to pursued a reluctant US government to
pay any attention to the threat. The difference now is that we do not
have an Einstein or a Roosevelt in charge to make wise decisions. The
US government is in chaos and unable to respond to even obvious
threats. On the other hand, Japan and China, although equally stupid
in many ways, have a self-interest to develop the technology that is
lacking in the West. Of course, the normal herd of skeptics and
people who follow the media carry the message that CF is not real.
These people would be ignored if the government really wanted CF to be
developed. The selling of the Iraq war shows just how effective the
government can be in getting what it wants.

On Sep 23, 2013, at 11:05 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote:

It is hard for me to imagine that it is an intelligent desire to
protect economic rent for few against the western population...

Having worked in finance, in Internet bubble, I would rather blame
it on individual weakness (selfishness, ambition, greed, self
delusion, submission to easy) sewed to make a fabric of
stupidity... with a few strong cables , like gary taubes and other
leader in closed mindedness, lack of culture, and ego, who give the
skeleton, the frame, to that tent of absurdity...

maybe the US human cables holding the western delusion tent cannot
reach Japan and China...

Maybe a language barrier...

sure most EU is under that tent...
why not the italians ? (maybe because they have a good palladium
provider!)

interesting question... selfish interest of a minority ? of
stupidity of the majority?

2013/9/23 Edmund Storms
Of course LENR is denied by the West. The technology is a real and
profound danger to the West. It would undermine the economics of the
energy industries, on which the West is built, and it would give the
Third world, including China and India, great advantage. The people
in charge in the West may seem stupid in their policies, but they
are fully aware of the danger LENR represents. The West will be
forced to accept the technology eventually, but not because an
intelligent approach was used to develop and take advantage of the
technology. No, they will have to accept the working generators
built in and controlled by China or some other country, such as
Sweden. LENR not only has the ability to make energy cheaper but it
will, in the process, change the power structure of the world, just
as discovery of atomic weapons did. This subject may be a fun
intellectual game to scientists; it is a life and death issue to
some industries and social structures.

On Sep 23, 2013, at 3:52 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote:

Did you notice that Cold fusion was treated much more in a balanced
way in Chinese and japanese .

lenr-canr is not blacklisted, and you find reference to many
positions.

what does it inspire you?

is LENR denial a western problem?

RE: [Vo]:New LENR patent application from STMicroelectronics

2013-09-23 Thread Jones Beene

Interview with Pharis Williams

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IB2wIBhAoVs


_

-Original Message-
From: pagnu...@htdconnect.com 

BTW, a recently published cold D+D fusion patent application
is -
Deuterium Reactor  -- US 20130235963 A1

ABSTRACT
The Deuterium Reactor is a fusion reactor whose design is
based upon a
non-singular electrostatic required by the quantization of
electric
charge. This potential allows for a significant reduction in
the fusion barrier of deuterium nuclei when these nuclei are held in close
proximity, as within a crystal, and preconditioned using a magnetic field. 


Lou, interesting find, in a way.

 At first this application seemed nutty, but the inventor
was funded by a small grant from:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Head_Naval_Surface_Warfare_Center

Whether that adds any credibility to the application is
debatable. 

One might reasonably ask: what is "a non-singular
electrostatic required by the quantization of electric charge." Sounds
cranky. Given the Quantum Hall Effect, it is hard to imagine what the
inventor is talking about - unless he is invoking Mills' f/H or redundant
ground states - from another perspective, or else Landau quantization.

In regard to the later, the De Haas-van Alphen effect may
indeed have a place in a hypothesis for "nanomagnetism" in LENR ... in the
way that Ahern and others are suggesting, yet I do not remember seeing this
effect mentioned before now.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Haas%E2%80%93van_Alphen_effect

Jones
<>

RE: [Vo]:New LENR patent application from STMicroelectronics

Jones Beene wrote:
>
> -Original Message-
> From: pagnu...@htdconnect.com
>
> BTW, a recently published cold D+D fusion patent application is -
> Deuterium Reactor  -- US 20130235963 A1
>
> ABSTRACT
> The Deuterium Reactor is a fusion reactor whose design is based upon a
> non-singular electrostatic required by the quantization of electric
> charge. This potential allows for a significant reduction in the fusion
> barrier of deuterium nuclei when these nuclei are held in close proximity,
> as within a crystal, and preconditioned using a magnetic field.
>
>
> Lou, interesting find, in a way.
>
>  At first this application seemed nutty, but the inventor was funded by a
> small grant from:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Head_Naval_Surface_Warfare_Center
>
> Whether that adds any credibility to the application is debatable.
>
> One might reasonably ask: what is "a non-singular electrostatic required
> by
> the quantization of electric charge." Sounds cranky. Given the Quantum
> Hall
> Effect, it is hard to imagine what the inventor is talking about - unless
> he
> is invoking Mills' f/H or redundant ground states - from another
> perspective, or else Landau quantization.
>
> In regard to the later, the De Haas-van Alphen effect may indeed have a
> place in a hypothesis for "nanomagnetism" in LENR ... in the way that
> Ahern
> and others are suggesting, yet I do not remember seeing this effect
> mentioned before now.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Haas%E2%80%93van_Alphen_effect
>
> Jones
>

Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion on Wikipedia japanes and chinese

2013-09-23 Thread James Bowery

The homeostatic mechanisms of these systems embody a kind of intelligence
that is all-too-frequently attributed to "conspiracy".  This is complicated
by the fact that genuine conspiratorial behavior is sometimes involved.  It
is further complicated by the vague definition of "conspiracy" as the word
is used in rhetorical conflict.  I find it helpful to think of these
homeostatic mechanisms as a kind of intelligence that is so alien to human
intelligence that we have difficulty conceptualizing it.  In this respect
it is similar to our difficulty in conceptualizing the homeostatic
mechanisms of our own bodies that include incredibly sophisticated systems
such as immune response.

If we could somehow get a better conceptual handle on the structure of
these mechanisms it might become practical to disrupt them so that progress
can proceed.

On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 10:38 AM, Edmund Storms wrote:

> Of course LENR is denied by the West. The technology is a real and
> profound danger to the West. It would undermine the economics of the energy
> industries, on which the West is built, and it would give the Third world,
> including China and India, great advantage. The people in charge in the
> West may seem stupid in their policies, but they are fully aware of the
> danger LENR represents. The West will be forced to accept the technology
> eventually, but not because an intelligent approach was used to develop and
> take advantage of the technology. No, they will have to accept the working
> generators built in and controlled by China or some other country, such as
> Sweden.  LENR not only has the ability to make energy cheaper but it will,
> in the process, change the power structure of the world, just as discovery
> of atomic weapons did. This subject may be a fun intellectual game to
> scientists; it is a life and death issue to some industries and social
> structures.
>
>
> On Sep 23, 2013, at 3:52 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote:
>
> Did you notice that Cold fusion was treated much more in a balanced way in
> Chinese and japanese .
>
> https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%B8%B8%E6%B8%A9%E6%A0%B8%E8%9E%8D%E5%90%88
> translated:
>
> http://translate.google.fr/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fja.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F%E5%B8%B8%E6%B8%A9%E6%A0%B8%E8%9E%8D%E5%90%88
>
>
> http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%86%B7%E6%A0%B8%E8%81%9A%E5%8F%98
>
> translated:
>
> http://translate.google.fr/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fzh.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F%E5%86%B7%E6%A0%B8%E8%81%9A%E5%8F%98
>
> lenr-canr is not blacklisted, and you find reference to many positions.
>
> what does it inspire you?
>
> is LENR denial a western problem?
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion on Wikipedia japanes and chinese

2013-09-23 Thread Alain Sepeda

It is hard for me to imagine that it is an intelligent desire to protect
economic rent for few against the western population...

Having worked in finance, in Internet bubble, I would rather blame it on
individual weakness (selfishness, ambition, greed, self delusion,
submission to easy)  sewed to make a fabric of stupidity... with a few
strong cables , like gary taubes and other leader in closed mindedness,
lack of culture, and ego, who give the skeleton, the frame, to that tent of
absurdity...

maybe the US human cables holding the western delusion tent cannot reach
Japan and China...
Maybe a language barrier...

sure most EU is under that tent...
why not the italians ? (maybe because they have a good palladium provider!)

interesting question... selfish interest of a minority ? of stupidity of
the majority?

2013/9/23 Edmund Storms 

> Of course LENR is denied by the West. The technology is a real and
> profound danger to the West. It would undermine the economics of the energy
> industries, on which the West is built, and it would give the Third world,
> including China and India, great advantage. The people in charge in the
> West may seem stupid in their policies, but they are fully aware of the
> danger LENR represents. The West will be forced to accept the technology
> eventually, but not because an intelligent approach was used to develop and
> take advantage of the technology. No, they will have to accept the working
> generators built in and controlled by China or some other country, such as
> Sweden.  LENR not only has the ability to make energy cheaper but it will,
> in the process, change the power structure of the world, just as discovery
> of atomic weapons did. This subject may be a fun intellectual game to
> scientists; it is a life and death issue to some industries and social
> structures.
>
>
> On Sep 23, 2013, at 3:52 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote:
>
> Did you notice that Cold fusion was treated much more in a balanced way in
> Chinese and japanese .
>
> https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%B8%B8%E6%B8%A9%E6%A0%B8%E8%9E%8D%E5%90%88
> translated:
>
> http://translate.google.fr/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fja.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F%E5%B8%B8%E6%B8%A9%E6%A0%B8%E8%9E%8D%E5%90%88
>
>
> http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%86%B7%E6%A0%B8%E8%81%9A%E5%8F%98
>
> translated:
>
> http://translate.google.fr/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fzh.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F%E5%86%B7%E6%A0%B8%E8%81%9A%E5%8F%98
>
> lenr-canr is not blacklisted, and you find reference to many positions.
>
> what does it inspire you?
>
> is LENR denial a western problem?
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:New LENR patent application from STMicroelectronics

2013-09-23 Thread Jones Beene


-Original Message-
From: pagnu...@htdconnect.com 

BTW, a recently published cold D+D fusion patent application is -
Deuterium Reactor  -- US 20130235963 A1

ABSTRACT
The Deuterium Reactor is a fusion reactor whose design is based upon a
non-singular electrostatic required by the quantization of electric
charge. This potential allows for a significant reduction in the fusion
barrier of deuterium nuclei when these nuclei are held in close proximity,
as within a crystal, and preconditioned using a magnetic field. 


Lou, interesting find, in a way.

 At first this application seemed nutty, but the inventor was funded by a
small grant from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Head_Naval_Surface_Warfare_Center

Whether that adds any credibility to the application is debatable. 

One might reasonably ask: what is "a non-singular electrostatic required by
the quantization of electric charge." Sounds cranky. Given the Quantum Hall
Effect, it is hard to imagine what the inventor is talking about - unless he
is invoking Mills' f/H or redundant ground states - from another
perspective, or else Landau quantization.

In regard to the later, the De Haas-van Alphen effect may indeed have a
place in a hypothesis for "nanomagnetism" in LENR ... in the way that Ahern
and others are suggesting, yet I do not remember seeing this effect
mentioned before now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Haas%E2%80%93van_Alphen_effect

Jones
<>

Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion on Wikipedia japanes and chinese

Of course LENR is denied by the West. The technology is a real and
profound danger to the West. It would undermine the economics of the
energy industries, on which the West is built, and it would give the
Third world, including China and India, great advantage. The people in
charge in the West may seem stupid in their policies, but they are
fully aware of the danger LENR represents. The West will be forced to
accept the technology eventually, but not because an intelligent
approach was used to develop and take advantage of the technology. No,
they will have to accept the working generators built in and
controlled by China or some other country, such as Sweden. LENR not
only has the ability to make energy cheaper but it will, in the
process, change the power structure of the world, just as discovery of
atomic weapons did. This subject may be a fun intellectual game to
scientists; it is a life and death issue to some industries and social
structures.

On Sep 23, 2013, at 3:52 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote:

Did you notice that Cold fusion was treated much more in a balanced
way in Chinese and japanese .

lenr-canr is not blacklisted, and you find reference to many
positions.

what does it inspire you?

is LENR denial a western problem?

Re: [Vo]:New LENR patent application from STMicroelectronics

Those are fairly old - filed in years 2000 and 1995, well before Rossi.
I am not sure they were working with Celani that early.

BTW, a recently published cold D+D fusion patent application is -

Deuterium Reactor  -- US 20130235963 A1

ABSTRACT
The Deuterium Reactor is a fusion reactor whose design is based upon a
non-singular electrostatic required by the quantization of electric
charge. This potential allows for a significant reduction in the fusion
barrier of deuterium nuclei when these nuclei are held in close proximity,
as within a crystal, and preconditioned using a magnetic field. This
manner of fusion barrier reduction produces direct fusion of two deuterium
nuclei into a helium nucleus without attendant hazardous radiation of
classical fusion reactors. The energy released in the deuterium reactor
may be used in different ways for different applications and its use will
result in a significant reduction in fossil fuel use, a significant
reduction in radioactive waste by replacing fission reactors, and a
significant impact upon the world economy.
http://www.google.com/patents/US20130235963

The theory differs from other more popular ones.

-- Lou Pagnucco

Daniel Rocha wrote:
> They have 2 other applications:
>
> https://www.google.com/patents/WO2001029844A1
> https://www.google.com/patents/WO1997020318A1
>
> I don't think they are related to Rossi.
>
> --
> Daniel Rocha - RJ
> danieldi...@gmail.com
>

Re: [Vo]:Was the Navy shooting far more significant than it seems?

This doesn't just "seem kinda far out." It IS far out. Far, far out.
Farther out than the Voyager 1 spacecraft.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:New LENR patent application from STMicroelectronics

2013-09-23 Thread Terry Blanton

On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 7:03 AM, Daniel Rocha  wrote:

> I don't think they are related to Rossi.

No, it was Celani.

Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion on Wikipedia japanes and chinese

Years ago some Americans opposed to cold fusion tried to change this
article, and they tried to ban LENR-CANR.org. A Japanese moderator asked
them not to.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:New LENR patent application from STMicroelectronics

2013-09-23 Thread Daniel Rocha

They have 2 other applications:

https://www.google.com/patents/WO2001029844A1
https://www.google.com/patents/WO1997020318A1

I don't think they are related to Rossi.

-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

[Vo]:Cold Fusion on Wikipedia japanes and chinese

2013-09-23 Thread Alain Sepeda

Did you notice that Cold fusion was treated much more in a balanced way in
Chinese and japanese .

https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%B8%B8%E6%B8%A9%E6%A0%B8%E8%9E%8D%E5%90%88
translated:
http://translate.google.fr/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fja.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F%E5%B8%B8%E6%B8%A9%E6%A0%B8%E8%9E%8D%E5%90%88


http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%86%B7%E6%A0%B8%E8%81%9A%E5%8F%98

translated:
http://translate.google.fr/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fzh.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F%E5%86%B7%E6%A0%B8%E8%81%9A%E5%8F%98

lenr-canr is not blacklisted, and you find reference to many positions.

what does it inspire you?

is LENR denial a western problem?

[Vo]:Was the Navy shooting far more significant than it seems?